Surendra Kumar Periwal vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shri Surendra Kumar Periwal, challenged an order blocking his electronic credit ledger. The petitioner contended that the blocking order, issued on September 14, 2020, was only valid for one year as per sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Despite the expiry of this one-year period, the respondents had not unblocked the credit ledger. The State, represented by Mr. Mukherjee, was asked to take instructions on whether any extension order had been passed. He submitted, on instructions, that no further order of extension had been issued.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order of blocking the petitioner's electronic credit ledger had lost its force and could not be continued. This decision was based on the petitioner's argument and the State's submission that no further order of extension had been passed. The Court relied on sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which prescribes a one-year validity period for such blocking orders. The legal consequence of the order losing its force would follow automatically. The Court disposed of the writ petition and the connected application with this observation and direction, effectively ordering the unblocking of the credit ledger.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order of blocking the petitioner's electronic credit ledger, issued on September 14, 2020, has lost its force and cannot be continued after the expiry of one year from the date of the order, in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the blocking order was only valid for one year as stipulated in sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017. Since the order was passed on September 14, 2020, its validity expired on September 13, 2021. Therefore, the continued blocking of the credit ledger was illegal. Revenue's contention: The State, through its counsel, was asked to provide instructions regarding any extension of the blocking order. On instructions, the State submitted that no further order of extension had been passed.
Sections Cited
Rule 86A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
11-03-2022 Item No.5 Subrata IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side WPA No.8839 of 2020 Shri Surendra Kumar Periwal -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. with CAN No.1 of 2022 Mr. Arijit Chakraborty Mr. Nilotpal Chowdhury Mr. Prabir Berar …for the petitioner Mr. S. Mukherjee Mr. N. Chatterjee …for the State Heard both parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of blocking electronic credit ledger of the petitioner by contending that period of validity of such blocking is one year only as per sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that such order of blocking was made on September 14, 2020, and that in view of the aforesaid provision, the respondents concerned are not unblocking the same, in spite of validity of such blocking has expired and lost its force after a year, In this regard Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, was asked to take instructions from the respondents concerned as to whether any further order of extension of the blocking in question has been passed to which he submits, on instructions, that no such further order of extension has been passed.
2 Considering the submission of the parties and the facts as appear from record, this writ petition is disposed of by declaring that the aforesaid impugned order of blocking of the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner has lost its force and cannot be continued now as per sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the 2017 Rules and the legal consequence will follow automatically. With the aforesaid observation and direction, WPA No.8839 of 2020 and the connected application – CAN No.1 of 2022 – are disposed of. [Md. Nizamuddin, J]
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.